Why I Don't Consider Myself a Calvinist

One of the longest running discussions that I have witnessed (and participated in) among the theologically literate is over the truth or untruth of Calvinism. Do we choose to become Christians, or is it completely the work of God calling us into his family? Do we have any free will in the matter? Those are the typical questions that we ask to begin these long and drawn out conversations. And Before long we are proof texting each other to oblivion. It is a good conversation to have, to be sure. The contributions to Christianity that Calvinists have brought are innumerable. I have the highest respect for Calvinists because their theology tends to be very intellectually robust. In fact, that in my opinion is one of the best features of Calvinism, its logic and intellectual vigor. I cannot say that I have ever met a dumb Calvinist. However, I am loathe to throw myself into the lot with the systematic theology that we call Calvinism. Here I will explain why I cannot bring myself to fully embrace the Calvinist label.

One of my problems with Calvinism is that it does tend to systematize Salvation History a little too much. Lying at the heart of Calvinism is the doctrine of Predestination; that is, how God chose some to be saved and others to be damned. In Calvinism, the story of Adam and Eve, Israel, Jesus, and the church become something of a great, divine script that is fulfilled whether we like it or not. There is little to no room for human autonomy. One of my theology professors has pointed out that in Calvinism, God the father becomes highly implicated in the death of Jesus. It is common among Calvinists (who tend to take a more substitutionary view of the atonement) to emphasize that God is punishing Jesus on the cross. While I do not have time to go into the particulars of why that way of phrasing it may not be entirely accurate, Biblically, I would like to point out that within the Biblical text, Jesus' death is portrayed as being "at the hands of sinners." In the preaching of the apostles in Acts, while Peter affirms that the people bear responsibility for crucifying the Son of God (Acts 2:23,36; 3: 14-15). The Biblical witness does affirm that somehow God knew all of the particulars of the crucifixion would happen to His son. He also planned to work out redemption through it. However, I have yet to find in the Biblical text where it explicitly says that God the father was punishing Jesus on the cross. It seems to be more accurate to say that Jesus was obedient to the father even though it led to death at the hands of "godless men."

My second problem with Calvinism is the doctrine of Unconditional election combined with the inescapable doctrine of Limited atonement. It seems to me that these two areas are the place where Calvinism has dug itself into a pit. The doctrine of Unconditional election, the idea that God chooses to save us based not on any of our merits, but solely out of grace, is a good doctrine. It is Biblically justified, I believe. It is tied in with predestination, which in Calvin's day, was a pastoral comfort to his people. Predestination was not always, as it often is today, this question of "Oh no! Did God choose me or did He not?" Predestination and election were taught to Calvin's people in the Biblical sense of something to be excited about. You don't have to worry about losing your salvation and going to Hell because God has chosen you! However, it seems to be that after Calvin, Calvinists became a bit concerned about who was chosen to be in and who was chosen to be out. Since God chooses some to be saved, that must mean he chooses others to be damned. If that is the case, then the atoning work of Jesus must not have applied to the whole world, but only to the elect. This, I believe, is a terrible misrepresentation of the work of the cross. Not only does the Bible explicitly say that Jesus has covered the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Paul repeatedly affirms how much greater power the cross has over all men than sin (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22).

The idea that God has chosen some to be damned and some to be saved leaves one with very little choice than a doctrine of limited atonement. This is why if I were to be a Calvinist, I would have to be a Universalist also. After all, if God chose to let sin pass to all people through the sin of one man, as Paul says, but only let the redeeming work of Christ apply to a chosen few (as Paul does not say), why does God not override the wills of all humans? If those few elect have their wills overridden by God and are saved, why does not God override the wills of his whole creation. After all, the Bible does affirm that God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:1-6). It seems to me that it if we are to take any human autonomy out of the picture, it would make sense to say that God will save all humans.

The Bible does affirm, as I pointed out earlier, that the grace of God is available to all humans, and that the redeeming work of the cross is greater than the death of sin. While some may take this to mean Universalism is the end result, the Bible does seem to suggest that there will be those who do not make it. By the way, John Stott, in his commentary on Romans points out that many Calvinists including Hodge and Calvin himself, believed that the number of the saved would far outweigh the number of the damned, based on Paul's arguments in Romans 5. It seems to me that it is most consistent with God's nature to allow human freedom in choosing whether or not to follow him. How many times in the scriptures does God throw the ball into the human court, telling his people to choose Him (life), or sin (death).

I do not call myself a Calvinist in the typical five-point sense. I cannot stomach the idea of limited atonement, which I believe is inescapable when you start to believe in Double Predestination (i.e. you're saved, you're damned). When it comes to what I do believe about what saves us, I have to answer that I believe that God at once chooses us, but that we bear responsibility for our choices. Karl Barth and the New Perspective on Paul has helped me out in this. I believe, as Barth did, that we need to view our calling and election through Jesus. Jesus is the one called by God, and his calling is representative of humankind's calling, just as Adam's sin is representative of humankind's condemnation. As Jesus suffered on the cross, he also experienced the condemnation of our sin, and in so doing condemned sin. The grace of the cross is greater and more effective than the sin of the world, and all the sins of the world have been forgiven by God. However, I believe that we still bear some responsibility on whether or not we enter that forgiveness. Barth said we can pray for the salvation of all human beings, and I believe that we should. I do not think that all will be saved, unfortunately, but I do hope that the work of the cross will bring in a great majority.